mgartmann added a comment. Please excuse my late reply! I have been on vacation for the last two weeks and didn't have the time to respond to this thread until now.
In D110614#3032760 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D110614#3032760>, @carlosgalvezp wrote: > So the derived destructor only shows up in `ClassTemplateSpecializationDecl` > - the `CXXRecordDecl` doesn't have it (therefore implicit public non-virtual) > and that's why the check triggers. I came to the same conclusion with a quick troubleshoot. Honestly, I didn't expect SEMA to behave this way and to generate CXXRecordDecl nodes without any CXXDestructorDecl sub-node. As a rather novice C++ programmer, I didn't have the described scenarios in mind when I initially created the check. Hence, the needed tests to find these false-positives beforehand were missing. I would like to apologise to everyone for the trouble this has caused. @carlosgalvezp Thanks a lot for putting your time and effort into fix this bug! In D110614#3038519 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D110614#3038519>, @carlosgalvezp wrote: > Anyway this check will need to be extended in the future, since the C++ Core > Guidelines has added a new bullet in their "Enforcement" section: > https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/commit/e44a9fcbd40923e9d5d342e444cf8a811e4a3eae Thanks for pointing this out to me. Let me know if I can help you with this in any way. I would be available to implement the new enforcement from 2021-10-11 on. Again, my dearest apologies for this bug. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D110614/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D110614 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
